Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:40:20.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Munda mimetic reduplication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2017

Jacob B. Phillips  and
K. David Harrison
Jacob B. Phillips*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
K. David Harrison*
Affiliation:
Swarthmore College
*
jbphillips@uchicago.edu
dharris2@swarthmore.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Munda languages of South Asia exhibit sound symbolism in their use of mimetic reduplication, to which they devote a surprisingly large percentage of their lexicons, typically upwards of ten percent. We present an extensive empirical typology of mimetic reduplication in seven Munda languages: Ho, Kera Mundari, Kharia, Mundari, Remo (Bondo), Santali, and Sora (Savara). Munda Mimetic forms can depict sensory qualities of sound, space, movement, texture, smell, taste, temperature, feelings, and sensations. The typology of mimetic reduplication in Munda varies across syntactic class, semantic domain and phonological form. This can shed light on the breadth of diverse structures in Munda languages, and may also be extrapolated to other languages and other examinations of reduplication and/or mimesis. This work provides a wealth of data to researchers of mimesis and reduplication, challenging the definition of what it means for forms to be sound-symbolic or reduplicated.

Résumé

Les langues Munda de l'Asie du Sud présentent un symbolisme sonore dans leur utilisation de la réduplication mimétique, qui constitue un pourcentage très élevé – typiquement plus de dix pour cent – de leur lexique. Nous présentons ici une typologie empirique abondante de la réduplication mimétique dans sept langues Munda: le Ho, le Kera Munari, le Kharia, le Mundari, Le Remo (Bondo), le Santali, et le Sora (Savara). Les formes mimétiques des langues Munda peuvent représenter les qualités sensorielles du son, de l'espace, du mouvement, de la texture, de l'odorat, du goût, de la température, des sentiments et des sensations. La typologie de la réduplication mimétique Munda varie selon la catégorie syntaxique, le domaine sémantique et la forme phonologique. Cela peut éclairer la diversité des structures dans les langues Munda, et peut également s'appliquer à d'autres langues et à d'autres études de la réduplication ou de la mimésis. Ce travail fournit aux chercheurs d'abondantes données de mimésis et de réduplication, et complique la définition de ce que cela signifie quand on dit que les formes sont symboliques de manière sonore, ou encore rédupliquées.

Keywords

mimesisreduplicationsound symbolismMundaIndiamimésisréduplicationsymbolisme sonoreMundaInde
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 62 , Issue 2: Structuring sensory imagery: Ideophones across languages and cultures/La structuration de l'imagerie sensorielle : les idéophones dans diverses langues et cultures , June 2017 , pp. 221 - 242
Copyright
© Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akita, Kimi. 2009. A grammar of sound-symbolic words in Japanese: Theoretical approaches to iconic and lexical properties of Japanese mimetics. Doctoral dissertation, Kobe University.Google Scholar
Alderete, John, Beckman, Jill, Benua, Laura, Ganadesikan, Amalia, McCarthy, John, and Urbancyzk, Suzanne. 1999. Reduplication with fixed segmentism. Linguistic Inquiry 30(3): 327–364.Google Scholar
Alexandre, Pierre. 1966. Préliminaire à une présentation des idéophones Bulu. In Neue Afrikanische Studien, Hamburger Beiträge zur Afrika-Kunde, ed. Lukas, Johannes. Hamburg: Deutsches Institut für Afrika-Forschung.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory. 2001. A new classification of Munda: evidence from comparative verb morphology. Indian linguistics 62(1): 27–42.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory. 2007. The Munda verb. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, and Harrison, K. David. 2008. Sora. In The Munda languages, ed. Anderson, Gregory, 299–380. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, and Harrison, K. David. 2011. Remo talking dictionary. Salem, OR: Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. < http://remo.swarthmore.edu/ >>Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, and Harrison, K. David. 2013a. Kera Mundari talking dictionary. Salem, OR: Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. <http://www.talkingdictionary.org/keramundari/>>Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, and Harrison, K. David. 2013b. Kharia talking dictionary. Salem, OR: Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. <http://talkingdictionary.swarthmore.edu/kharia/>>Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, and Harrison, K. David. 2013c. Santali talking dictionary. Salem, OR: Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. <http://talkingdictionary.swarthmore.edu/santali/>>Google Scholar
Anderson, Gregory, Harrison, K. David, and Pucilowski, Anna. 2010. Ho talking dictionary. Salem, OR. Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. <http://ho.swarthmore.edu/>>Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita, and Dahl, Osten. 1994. Ideophones in sign language? The place of reduplication in the tense-aspect system of Swedish Sign Language. In Tense, aspect and action: Empirical and theoretical contributions to language typology, ed. Bache, Carl, Basbøll, Hans, and Lindberg, Carl-Erik, 397–422. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2009. Ideophones in unexpected places. In Proceedings of the 2 nd Conference on Language Documentation and Linguistic Theory, ed. Peter K. Austin, Oliver Bond, and David Nathan, 83–97. London: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. Ezra Pound among the Mawu: Ideophones and iconicity in Siwu. In Semblance and signification, ed. Michelucci, Pascal, Fischer, Olga, and Ljungberg, Christina, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark. 2012. Advances in the cross-linguistic study of ideophones. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 654–672.Google Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, and Majid, Asifa. 2012. The semantic structure of sensory vocabulary in an African language. In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2012), ed. Miyake, Naomi, Peebles, David, and Cooper, Richard P., 300–305. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 2011. Cognitive iconic grounding of reduplication in language. In Semblance and signification, ed. Michelucci, Pascal, Fischer, Olga, and Ljungberg, Christina, 55–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. David, Anderson, Gregory, and Phillips, Jacob. 2011. Sora talking dictionary. Salem, OR.: Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages. <http://sora.talkingdictionary.org/>>Google Scholar
Hoffman, John. 1950. Encyclopaedia Mundarica. Patna: Government Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. Reduplication. In Oxford handbook of derivational morphology, ed. Lieber, Rochelle, and Štekauer, Pavel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kilian-Hatz, Christa. 1999. Ideophone: Eine typologische Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung afrikanischer Sprachen. [A typological study with special focus on African languages] Doctoral dissertation, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Masato, and Murmu, Ganesh. 2008. Keraʔ Mundari. In The Munda languages, ed. Anderson, Gregory, 299–380. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. Paul, ed. 2009. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL International. <http://www.ethnologue.com/>>Google Scholar
McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1986. Prosodic morphology. Ms., University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Brandeis University.Google Scholar
McNeillie, Janice, Corréard, Marie-Hélène, Valerie Grundy, Marie Ollivier-Caudray, and Donald Watt. 2007. Larousse French–English Dictionary. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Møller, Aage R. 2003. Sensory systems: Anatomy and physiology. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul. 1989. Reduplication and tone in Hausa ideophones. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Hall, Kira, Meacham, Michael, and Shapiro, Richard, 248–255. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Phillips, Jacob. 2013. A model and typology of reduplication in Sora. Bachelor's thesis, Swarthmore College.Google Scholar
Raimy, Eric. 2000. The phonology and morphology of reduplication. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ramamurti, Rao Sahib. 1938. Sora-English dictionary. Delhi: Mittal.Google Scholar
Rubino, Carl. 2013. Reduplication. In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. <http://wals.info/chapter/27/>Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1992. Sora combining forms and pseudo-compounding. Mon-Khmer studies 18–19: 78–105.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1996. Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In Language and space, ed. Bloom, Paul, Peterson, Mary, Nadel, Lynn, and Garrett, Merrill, 307–384. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Urbanczyk, Suzanne. 1998. A-templatic reduplication in Halq'eméylem. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Shahin, Kimary, Blake, Susan, and Kim, Eun-Sook, 655–669. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vitebsky, Piers. 1993. Dialogues with the dead: The discussion of mortality among the Sora of eastern India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Esther, and Garrett, Andrew. 2001. The semantics of Yurok intensive infixation. In Proceedings from the Fourth Workshop on American Indigenous Languages, ed. Castillo, Jeannie, 112–126. Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Wortabet, John, and Porter, Harvey. 1995. Arabic English Hippocrene Standard Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan. 2005. Towards a typology of compensatory reduplication. In Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. Alderete, John, 397–405. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Zide, Norman. 1969. Munda and non-Munda Austroasiatic languages. In Current Trends in Linguistics 5 , ed. Sebeok, Thomas, 411–430. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zide, Norman. 1976. A note on GtaP echo forms. Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications 13: Austroasiatic Studies part II: 1335–1343.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Aske, John, Beery, Natasha, Michaelis, Laura, and Filip, Hana, 330–340. Berkeley, CA: University of California Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar